Marked

What I really found remarkable about Marked by Devah Pager was the historical specifics she gave. I studied Foucault's Panopticon in my Language 120 class, and my interest in the prison system has been piqued ever since then. There has always been a question of whether prison systems should reform prisoners (if they could be reformed) or if the penal system should simply execute (or use some sort of corporeal punishment) against them to get rid of the criminals in society. Throughout history, both ways have been tried and failed in their execution, so there really is no answer as to what to do in regards to "rule-breakers." Since westerners have moved passed the drawing and quartering phase of the 18th century, we have moved toward a more optimistic way of viewing the penal system.

The popular novel and film, A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess, gives a critical analyses of the method of rehabilitating criminals. Alex, the main character and criminal of the story, falls into the hands of people who are trying to introduce rehabilitation into the prison system through the Ludovico Technique, a form of aversion therapy. Yet, at times, it seemed that the rehabilitation was just as tortuous as the torture common in the 18th century, only it was psychologically tortuous instead of physically. The idea that criminals can be reformed so that they want to live within the norms of society is a relatively new idea. The British (original) version of the story ends with an optimistic view of Alex's therapy where he reforms his ways to become a regular member of society. This is in line with new thinking that it is possible and commendable to give criminals the chance to redeem themselves through therapy and good behavior and be released back into society.

The American version of A Clockwork Orange; however, lacked the final chapter of the book in which Alex changed his ways, ending on a much more pessimistic note where the audience believes that nothing was able to change Alex's evil, criminal mind. Burgess left out the final chapter in the American edition because his editor suggested that it would be better received by Americans if it maintained the moral, if you will, that "criminals are inherently evil and cannot be changed." 

As Pager moves away from the history she provides in the introduction and into the findings of her research, this perception on criminals became more evident to me. While the American Penal System offers many programs (North Carolina's programs) for prisoners to educate themselves (GRE programs, college classes, library access, ect), there forever remains a mark on a felon's record warning future employer's of his/her past crime. I believe that we are putting an strong effort, not to mention a lot of money, into rehabilitating prisoners. What I don't understand is why, if we believe prisoners can be reformed, we allow them to remain "marked" for the rest of their lives. Pager discusses the numerous disadvantages of being a felon released from prison. And as if the discrimination against felons were not already enough to keep a group of people from advancing in society, she noted the significantly higher percentage of black people in prison AND the decrease in likelihood that an employer would hire a black felon over a white one with the same background. It really is astounding how discrimination and racism can play such a huge role in the lives of those who end up in prison. 

It is important that the issue of racism in America (justice system and all) be faced, but I am not going to address it here. The big question I would like to focus on is: do reformed felons deserve the same amount of dignity as citizens who obey the law their entire life?

-I'm going to explore the answer, no, first. Felons do not deserve the same privileges as upstanding citizens because they failed at every day life so much that taxpayers had to provide for them so they would be off of the streets and in a position so they could not harm any law-abiding citizens. With this line of thinking, why should people who commit felonies have access to the hard-earned money of those citizens who do not get caught breaking the law? Why don't we just save the extra money and kill them if they are not fit to interact in society? That seems like the most logical conclusion to this argumentation. We are in a recession and yet still spending millions of taxpayer dollars on people who are innately and unchangeably geared toward criminal acts.

-Now let's say that the answer is yes, reformed felons deserve the same dignity as other citizens. If this is the case, then the logic should point us in a direction to spend the money to rehabilitate criminals, giving them the chance to be mainstreamed into society as productive members. It doesn't make sense; however, to create a status for reformed criminals, such as felon, that follows them everywhere they go and allows for legal discrimination against them. What is our system really saying about fundamental beliefs in reforming criminals? Does its insistence on this life-impeding status of felon show its doubt that criminals can be reformed? Or, perhaps a bit more controversial, does it imply a lack of confidence in the system of rehabilitation? Or maybe the justice system itself?

Seeing that the most common felony in America, with over 1 million offenders in 2009, is a crime that mainly affects oneself (drug abuse violations), I would say that our system has a rather skewed view of what is a major crime (felony) and what is a less serious crime (misdemeanor). I am not in any way saying that drug abuse should not be considered a crime, but rather that it should possibly be looked at as a less severe crime than violent crimes that truly endanger other citizens' lives. Could the money that is currently put into felony rehabilitation for drug abusers be used to assist programs such as halfway houses instead? I believe that many people would go to rehabilitation on their own when they lose their job or hit rock bottom if they had more support outside of prison, where they were not "marked" for the rest of their lives.

To end this more serious blog on a funny note, please enjoy the following clip expressing the comedian Katt Williams' opinion on the ever popular and controversial drug, marijuana. (warning: explicit content)

 

Unequal Childhoods

While reading Unequal Childhoods, I was faced with more than a few nihilistic thoughts. As I continued down my thought pattern, I realized that social class is not everything. I think that there isn't a singular layout for parenting that is good for every person within a society. Successful people come from a number of different parenting styles. One issue I took with this book is its assumption that the there were only two options when it comes to parenting styles. I think that the middle-class parenting style is as seriously flawed as the working-class style. While both have their strengths, a combination of the two seems the most logical to me. Children need many different types of support. Sometimes they need freedom, sometimes security, sometimes challenges, and sometimes discipline. While that is not anywhere near a full list, I think that this video makes a good point about not falling into the trap of protecting your child from every single little thing and relentlessly trying to control their environment. They will never learn independence if parents always direct and protect them.

[SO, this is the point where my entire thought process is going to be completely new. I made the mistake of not saving the work I did all week long, and I am now back to beginning. Sometimes you just have to roll with the punches, though. Moving on...]

The following video brings up situations in which the culture a child is raised in can skew Lareau’s results about class’ effect on parenting style. Parents have the choice to raise their children in any parenting style regardless of their economic class. My story is similar to some of the exceptions in this video except that my family is natively American (not Native American, just to be clear). My mother was my primary parent. My father supported what she did, but he was not around very much throughout my youth, especially when it came to doing schoolwork. He was in the military and I only saw him on the weekends, and not even every weekend once I began middle school. Anyway, my mother was one of 10 children in an impoverished family who lived in the metropolitan part of Cleveland, Ohio. Needless to say, she didn't have the best parenting or prospects of upward social mobility. She joined the Marine Corps when she was 18, though, and that is when she truly moved up in social class. I think that the military is one solid way for the working and lower classes to gain upward mobility, especially now that they pay for education for soldiers as well. But that is getting a little off topic. My mother raised me in both a cultivated and a natural growth way. She consistently asked me what I learned in school and helped me with my homework, but she also had me go outside to play with the neighborhood children in the woods. The only extra-curricular activities I participated in were ones offered by the school that didn't cost anything to participate in. I feel like this allowed me to be very well rounded with a fairly equal grasp of both 'intelligence' (from cultivation) and 'smarts' (from natural growth), or at least that was how my father always explained it. 

I think that the children in the video and I are the exception to the rule, though. Our parents were not caught up in the trap of generations of static, unfulfilled social mobility. My father's family was a little better off than my mother's, but neither were of the middle class. The military was what broke the chain for both of them, and therefore for me. Not every family, or even every person, is in that situation, though. Many children grow up in families that don't put any effort into cultivation, or even families who discourage school and education all together. Many people in the rural south still teach their children that there is not point to finish high school unless you want to be a doctor, lawyer or teacher. I encountered one or two of these while I was growing up. It may seem outlandish to think that at this point in our history there are still people who do not see the value of a high school education, but they exist. And, when a child whose parents believe this encounters differing opinions in school, they are usually criticized by their parents, which has a great impact. These parents are not to be confused with those participating in the "unschooling" movement, which is a Montessori-style homeschooling.

The film, Waging a Living, illustrates the difficulty of upward social mobility. The people portrayed in the film had jobs and worked hard, but still lived in poverty without hope of a better life. They did all that they were capable of financially. They believed in the concept of the American Dream, if you work hard, then you will be able to own a home and support your family without difficulty. Waging a Living illustrates that the American Dream is a lot harder to obtain than we are told and speaks to the issues this entails. One problem was that government assistance only helps if one is completely destitute. As soon as one is offered opportunities, the assistance takes away an equal or greater amount. This is unfortunate because there is no incentive to work harder if money is just going to be taken from you. The poor in our country are unable to grasp hold of the American Dream they have been working for their entire lives. It is fairly disheartening and probably the reason for so many 'welfare queens.' 

Lareau’s main point was that class has a large effect upon which parenting style is used within a household. I agree with her that in most cases, that is the largest determiner of success. The higher the social class one is born into, the more opportunities one encounters and profits from. 

Week Seven

While reading Pedagogy of the Oppressed, I was forced to recognize that this book is designed for a very specific sort of education: education with the express purpose of liberation from oppression. Freire often speaks of equality between teachers and students (problem-posing method) and of the leaders and followers. I believe that this method is excellent for adults, but I was left wondering if this sort of pedagogy would really work in grade school. If anything is going to change in education on a large scale, it has to involve all levels of education.

I guess my first question would have to be:

  Where did we get our current system of education?
--It is clear that our education system is majorly flawed. Teachers, Students, Parents, Government Officials, and more all agree with this statement. Some want to change everything, some want to tweak a few things, and others look to the good old days to see how it looked when "everything was right." What I want to figure out is where we went wrong as well as where we went right.

While our education has been in the process of reform from the moment it began until now, Horace Mann was the first significant player in shaping our education system. He advocated for public education for all people in the face of the rush of immigrants flooding into the country. He was not perfect, and came no where near perfecting education in America, but he got the ball rolling on public education for all. His idea was that public education would be a way to give all of the diverse cultures and peoples flooding into America a common ground.

Many other reformers came after Mann, but I believe that the wrench that was thrown in the system came from reformer Ellwood Cubberly. Cubberly took the power out of the hands of reformers and created the industry-based administration that is still around today for education. I believe this is where education reform went wrong, and no one that followed him truly went back to fix it. John Dewey came close, but he focused too much on the classroom and the teachers without regarding the administration to fix the problem. I am not saying that Dewey did not come up with incredible ideas, but rather that he came up with ideas for the classroom that would be eventually hindered by the administration to the point where they would fail. And, since no one advocating for public education really came after him, traditional public schools have received progressively worse reputations. This is especially true of late in the public vs. charter school debates. One can easily get wrapped up in a "who did what wrong/right" blaming session, but this doesn't really help.

Banking Method: Pouring exactly what oppressor's want
 oppressed to know into their heads without any room
 for contradiction.

What Freire would say is that the education system was flawed from the beginning when it was formed around the banking method of education. Instead of the students coming together to demand more education, one man (Horace Mann, to be specific) thought that everyone needed a standardized education. So, he formed an educational system based upon the what he, a successful member of the "oppressor" group, thought that everyone needed to know in order to succeed. This could never work as a method for liberation for the poor, incoming immigrants because the system was designed so that everyone coming into the country had to conform completely to a society which had no room for them other than menial jobs that kept them in poverty and oppression. Freire supports this analysis when he says:

The truth is, however, that the oppressed are not "marginal," are not men living "outside" society. They have always been "inside" - inside the structure which made them "beings for others." The soluciton is not to "integrate" them into the structure of oppression, but to transform that structure so that they can become "beings for themselves." (61)

My second question:
Where can we go from here? What are some different options?
--With game shows such as "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" it is no wonder that the American Education System is under such scrutiny. I do not think this show is highlighting that education has gotten better, but rather the common phenomena of children memorizing for tests instead of truly learning material. Students are not taught in such a way that they interact with the new information, thereby making it a part of their knowledge base. But instead, they are taught the skills of memorization and regurgitation along with a few test taking skills. I do not know a single person who calls this way of teaching educational or informative.


It may not be as hard as it seems to find effective ways to educate, though. Nor is it as difficult to find schools in America that educate in this fashion. One of the growing trends in education is self-directed learning. This form of education reflects a lot of the same values as Freire's problem-posing educational approach. One major example of a self-directed learning model is the Montessori Method. The Montessori Method works on the assumption that children are intrinsically motivated to learn already and need a teacher to support their interests and exploration instead of feeding them facts.

 

After viewing this video, I did a bing search to try and find weaknesses with this method of teaching. I was very surprised to find that there wasn't a single link on the first page of results that wasn't completely positive and relavent. Maybe this is a viable template for revamping America's Education System. Some schools in New York are picking up on this method by introducing Student-led Parent-Teacher conferences. They feel that when the students are involved that they take more pride and responsibility for they education.

This method is not confined to grade school and college education, though. The video that follows speaks to how businesses can use the concept of problem-posing education to allow greater productivity in their workforce. Not only is this a great model of education, but it is also a great business model. People do not change so much when the graduate from school to working, and a successful business's goal should always be to have their employees consistently bettering themselves and learning the latest innovations. The world does not stay stagnant, but rather is constantly changing and advancing. It is everyone's duty to work together to make the world a better and more enjoyable place.